From Baltimore OUTloud

Ten Questions for Dan Furmansky

Equality Maryland’s Executive Director speaks out on the upcoming elections, the organization’s new PAC endorsements, and what’s at stake for the lgbt community.

Friday, October 13, 2006

With the vital 2006 mid-term elections looming nationally plus the critical local races for Maryland's governor and a U.S. Senate seat, Baltimore OUTloud's Senior Political Analyst Steve Charing interviewed Dan Furmansky. They discussed the significance of the November elections, Equality Maryland's role and strategy, and what lies ahead.

Equality Maryland is the state's largest lgbt civil rights organization whose annual Jazz Brunch fundraiser takes place on Sunday, October 22. Following is the interview with Mr. Furmansky:

SC: So far, no one in the campaigns for Governor and U.S. Senator has even so much as whispered a word about gay issues. Why is that?

DF: There is some conventional political wisdom that these gay-baiting tactics had their heyday in 2004, but have since gotten old. While I think that is an overly simplistic viewpoint, and we as a community should be prepared for the high number of states that will pass constitutional amendments this November, I have never believed that Maryland was the ripest environment for such anti-gay politicking. With the issues of electricity deregulation, educational funding, healthcare disparities, waterway pollution, and voter disenfranchisement in the news -- not to mention the war -- suddenly Adam and Steve's impending nuptials don't seem quite as threatening... at least not in our state.

SC: What's at stake for lgbt people in Maryland this November, and why should we vote?

DF: I think the question is... what isn't at stake? As a community, we're fighting for an end to workplace discrimination -- especially for transgender Americans. We need to end bullying in schools, stop the forces that oppose fact-based education about sexual orientation, obtain equal pay for equal work (via benefits), legalize our relationships, and end unfairness in taxation, to name just a few.

We have candidates for office who seek to help with these issues, and we have their opponents who believe either that these issues do not exist, or that we bring them upon ourselves by "choosing our lifestyle." If we want to move forward, we must cast a ballot for those who stand up for us, and we must defeat those who seek to make us invisible, or condemn us, or stamp the constitution with homophobia.

SC: Governor Ehrlich has had a mixed record concerning lgbt issues. How would the re-election of Governor Ehrlich hurt the lgbt community?

DF: "Mixed record" is alarmingly generous. While in Congress, he supported a ban on gay adoptions and voted against the federal hate crimes bill and Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As Governor, he vetoed a bill granting medical decision making rights for unmarried couples. He has come out against any legal recognition for same-sex couples, against domestic partner benefits for state employees, and he supports a constitutional amendment. He also vetoed a bill that would have eliminated the transfer and recordation that gay people pay as through we're strangers to our partners.

His "support" for the gay community, erroneously described in mainstream media outlets, was sponsoring a measure to create a registry of advance directives for all Marylanders. This does not grant any rights to lgbt people; it's just good health policy. Signing our state hate crimes bill is not noble, it's a common sense law enforcement and prosecutorial tool. Hiring an openly gay individual and firing an expendable appointee for anti-gay comments at a time when he needs to come off as moderate does not, in my opinion, a mixed record make. Is he Rick Santorum? No. But nor is he a friend to the lgbt community.

SC: In what ways would Martin O'Malley be any better?

DF: Martin O'Malley supports the lgbt community, period. He has a record to be proud of on our issues. O'Malley has been at every Baltimore Pride during his tenure as mayor. He signed the only transgender anti-discrimination law in the state, and supported domestic partner benefits while on the City Council. He created an lgbt task force. He supports domestic partner benefits for state employees and provided support for the Medical Decision-Making Act. Many lgbt Baltimoreans know him, socialize with him, dialogue with him.

Let's be frank -- would we prefer it for the Mayor to come out for equal marriage rights? Of course. Ending discrimination means ending discrimination in marriage. But on absolutely every other issue of importance, the Mayor is with us, including unequivocally opposing any anti-gay constitutional amendments. I have no doubt that the Mayor will continue to provide an open ear for our community and use his political stature to further the rights of lgbt Marylanders.

SC: What is the one key issue that lgbt voters should be considering in voting for Ben Cardin or Michael Steele?

DF: The Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposal so heinous that it will be skewered in the history books in decades to come. Ben Cardin opposes it, as well as a state constitutional amendment. He also supports repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, civil unions, domestic partner benefits for Federal employees and fairness in taxation.

As for Michael Steele, he spoke at a rally of the group "Defend Maryland Marriage" whose web site once said "we must expose vile attempts by militant homosexual activists to sodomize our children," as well as a meeting of ministers who gathered to strategize on how to move forward the Federal Marriage Amendment. Is there really any comparison?

SC: This year Equality Maryland developed a political action committee. It seems that returning the PAC questionnaires was a prerequisite for endorsements. Aren't there other factors?

Case in point: Howard County Executive Jim Robey, who is running against Republican Sen. Sandra Schrader in the 13th legislative district, failed to return a questionnaire. Isn't his courageous executive order to authorize domestic partner benefits in Howard County government sufficient to receive an endorsement?

DF: The PAC has been the most overwhelmingly positive development for our movement and is the most politically important thing we have accomplished this year. Of course I agree with you that County Executive Robey's executive order was an outstanding move on his part. But, like almost every PAC in existence, returning a questionnaire is a basic criterion for endorsement, and every candidate had several chances to do so. Equality Maryland PAC had position thresholds for its endorsements and dispensation of funds. Not returning the questionnaire may indicate a lack of desire for endorsement.

SC: The PAC endorsed Sen. John Giannetti who was allegedly recruited by homophobe Sen. Alex X. Mooney to switch to the Republican Party following his loss in the primary. The Baltimore Sun reported that another homophobe, Sen. Nancy Jacobs, said that Giannetti is a good fit for the GOP on marriage. Why did the PAC endorse him?

DF: Sen. Giannetti did exceptional work in passing the Hate Crimes Penalties Act, which he sponsored in 2005, and assuring that crimes against transgender individuals are included in our statute. He voted for all Equality Maryland supported measures in 2004 and 2005 and against all bills opposed by Equality Maryland. Furthermore, he has stated his opposition to an amendment in the past.

However, with Sen. Giannetti's re-entry into the general election race, it appears that the lgbt community is being used as a political pawn and wedge issue by members of the Republican Party who are backing him.

Equality Maryland PAC is deeply troubled when minority groups are used as political footballs to garner votes. The PAC asked Sen. Giannetti to reiterate his opposition to writing discrimination into the Maryland Constitution and to publicly condemn the attacks on LGBT Marylanders by his Republican supporters. He has failed to do so, calling into question our trust in his support of fairness and justice.

The PAC has endorsed Jim Rosapepe in the [November 7] general election. We believe former delegate and former ambassador Rosapepe's support for lgbt equality will make him a strong ally, and we look forward to working with him.

SC: On the Deane and Polyak v. Conaway lawsuit, is the ruling from the Maryland Court of Appeals, projected to take place in the early winter, influencing Equality Maryland's strategy?

DF: Actually, no one knows when a ruling will take place. Oral arguments are in early December, and the Court of Appeals takes, on average, five months to decide a case. In some states, courts have held onto their decisions in these cases for more than a year. But our high court is unpredictable. Our strategy has always involved preparing for a positive ruling, while also working to move forward our issues legislatively.

SC: Other than staving off a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in Maryland, what is Equality Maryland's legislative agenda come 2007?

DF:We're working hard during the elections to make sure that we have a supportive General Assembly and Executive branch in 2007, which is priority #1. Whoever lives in the Governor's mansion will greatly influence what we are able to accomplish over the next four years.

SC: What will it take for Democrats at all levels of government to speak out for same-sex marriage, gay adoptions and other issues vital to the lgbt community?

DF: Our community should be so proud of the work we have accomplished to create as many pro-marriage supporters as we now have. A number of delegates and senators are 100% with us on this issue, as well as the Democratic candidates for Attorney General and Comptroller. Sadly, elections breed trepidation. But elected officials often possess a measure of bravery that may have eluded them during their candidacies. If we keep communicating with them, supporting the ones who have earned it, and telling our stories, legislators will understand that history will judge them harshly for not being on the correct side of this issue.